One of these cases began in April 2015, when a tax inspector imposed an additional parking tax assessment of EUR 58.90 on Privacy First chairman Bas Filippini. The Privacy First chairman lodged an objection at the time and, after it was rejected on January 29, 2016, he lodged an appeal. More than two years after the fine was imposed, the court declared the appeal unfounded on October 12, 2017.
Both in the district court and in the court of appeal, one of the questions is whether the license plate parking system used by the municipality of Amsterdam violates the right to privacy.
court ruling With reference to (European) case law, the court ruled that the concept of 'private life' is a broad one. The fundamental right to privacy protection therefore covers not only activities in private spaces (at home), but also other types of activities outside the home. According to the court, a violation of the right to private life can therefore also occur in public spaces, such as when parking on the street. However, the court points out that not every action by the government constitutes an 'interference' with private life, even if such observations are made with the aid of equipment such as cameras.
However, this may be different if the observations are systematically stored and processed. In 2017, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tax and Customs Administration's use of ANPR cameras (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) for the levying and monitoring of motor vehicle tax is not permitted, as there was no legal basis for this (note: the law has since been amended and the Tax and Customs Administration has resumed the use of ANPR cameras).
The court initially ruled that license plate parking does not constitute an invasion of privacy. This is because the license plate number recorded by the scanning car is stored in encrypted form and deleted after 48 hours. Only if it appears that the parking fee has not been paid is the encryption removed and the corresponding data stored for longer.
Court ruling
The interested party did not accept this and lodged an appeal. However, the court, like the district court, ruled that there was no prohibited interference with private life. "The checks carried out by means of scanning cars can be regarded as observations in public spaces, which in themselves do not constitute prohibited interference. The interested party's reasonable expectations regarding his privacy have not been violated in this respect. On the contrary, he could reasonably expect that parking tax checks would be carried out and that the license plate number of the car would be registered for the purpose of those checks." Like the court, the court of appeal takes into account that the license plate number is first converted into a 40-character encrypted code that is deleted after 48 hours. The interested party loses the case for the second time.
License plate parking not mandatory
In early 2015, Privacy First chairman Bas Filippini successfully brought another lawsuit against the municipality of Amsterdam regarding license plate parking. Filippini had deliberately not entered a license plate number when parking. The court subsequently ruled that if a parking user does not enter a license plate number but can demonstrate that they have paid, no parking fine may be imposed. However, in many places you can now only park by entering your license plate number, so the only option for the time being seems to be to (deliberately) enter the wrong license plate number. In 2016, the Supreme Court confirmed that additional parking tax may not be levied if parking tax has been paid but the wrong license plate number has been entered for the parked car.
More articles by SOLV Lawyers
